I believe this thread is about anti-evolution. May I not engage? I believe the first two humans were without belly-buttons. What is wrong with that? What's it to you if that's what I believe?

The THEORY of Evolution makes little sense to me, and as I understand it anyone who believes it does not know human history.

The THEORY of evolution states the following: due to radiation affecting a creatures sexual organs, animals give birth to creatures differing significantly from their parents. This is concluded from Goeffrey St.Hilare's experiments. If the "deformity" is advantageous enough to allow the creature to survive to reproduce, then the genes dictating the deformity will be inherited by the offspring.

What I find most in-credible is the variability of genetics, which are then strictly inherited...

originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

I believe this thread is about anti-evolution. May I not engage? I believe the first two humans were without belly-buttons. What is wrong with that?

Click to expand...

It makes no scientific sense.

What's it to you if that's what I believe?

Click to expand...

You can believe whatever you like. But if you post your beliefs on a science discussion board, the validity of the science (or lack thereof) will be discussed. Hence the name.

If you don't want it discussed - don't post it. Pretty simple.

The THEORY of evolution states the following: due to radiation affecting a creatures sexual organs, animals give birth to creatures differing significantly from their parents. This is concluded from Goeffrey St.Hilare's experiments. If the "deformity" is advantageous enough to allow the creature to survive to reproduce, then the genes dictating the deformity will be inherited by the offspring.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

1) The initial driver is mutation; radiation is just one way that happens.
2) In general new creatures don't differ "significantly" from their parents. Most changes are gradual. A very few occur rapidly.
3) The "deformity" as you call it has to have an evolutionary advantage to spread throughout the population.

It doesn't matter as long as reproduction is viable, I.e. they can attract a mate.

Click to expand...

If you're going to participate, please try to observe convention and quote the pertinent passage that you are responding to.
From the above response, one can't tell what "it" is and what it "doesn't matter" to.

Evolution is indisputable fact. It can be observed in any petri dish, any dog kennel or any fish breeding farm.

If you're going to participate, please try to observe convention and quote the pertinent passage that you are responding to.
From the above response, one can't tell what "it" is and what it "doesn't matter" to.

Evolution is indisputable fact. It can be observed in any petri dish, any dog kennel or any fish breeding farm.

What is harder to demonstrate is the theory of natural selection.

Click to expand...

A recent discovery suggests that evolution of DNA can be traced back to archaea.

The first look at how archaea package their DNA reveals they’re a lot like usPeek into microbes hints that packing scheme for genetic material goes way back

Single-celled microbes may have taught plants and animals how to pack their genetic baggage.
Archaea, a type of single-celled life-form similar to bacteria, keep their DNA wrapped around proteins much in the same way as more complex organisms, researchers report in the Aug. 11 Science. This finding provides new insight into the evolutionary origins of the DNA-packing process and the secret to archaea’s hardiness, which enables some to live in acid, boiling water or other extreme environments.

As to natural selection, it seems to me that at this stage of life male/female selection was not of great importance as long as it resulted in off-spring. As Hazen proposed, it was only when subtle difference in DNA gave a survival advantage over an older form that competition became an issue. The newer DNA organisms might have been able to breed with older DNA organisms, but the resulting off-spring might be infertile, as we can see today even in very closely related species of mammals. If we did not specifically breed for mules, they might die out naturally, even as there are rare exceptions.

It would be logical to assume that at that time stronger more vigorous organisms would successfully compete with organisms of lesser abilities, which then resulted in a gradual cognitive ability in females to select for those traits which proved their dominance over other species. And this led to a cycle of natural selection for specific traits which proved to be more successful.

IMO natural selection is somewhat misleading as it suggests that only the best adapted species survive. But natural selection can also be viewed as a natural de-selection or even a natural stabilization of a population in a special niche, where mutations are a disadvantage. No human can live near a black smoker, but a few very simple organism are perfectly adapted to such an extreme environment and any change would make the organism not fit in that specific environment.
An example of such reverse devolution can be seen in cave dwelling fish, which at one time had developed eyes, but which were useless in total darkness. As a result their eyes stopped development and became scaled
over, but they undoubtedly developed other means of sensing food sources.

And then there are the very rare species, such as the silvery salamander, which already have an ability to produce off-spring without the need for male sperm. The species needs only go through the mating ritual with males from another salamander family, but rejects the male sperm as it would produce a triple stranded DNA, which is not viable. So they use their own double stranded DNA for cell division. The result is that all silvery salamanders are not only all female, but exact clones of the mother. It is no wonder that they are an endangered (and protected) species living in a few small ponds in Michigan and Illinois

Behaviour[edit]
Lacking its own males, the LJJ biotype breeds with male Blue-Spotted or Jefferson Salamanders from March to April. The males' spermatophores only stimulate egg development; their genetic material does not contribute to the offspring's DNA. This mode of reproduction is called gynogenesis. The females lay cylindrical egg masses and attach them to underwater twigs. It is not often observed and its diet and lifestyle are unknown.

Click to expand...

Habitat and range[edit]
These salamanders live almost anywhere between south-central Michigan to adjacent Indiana and Ohio to western Massachusetts south to northern New Jersey. They are commonly found in or near shallow rivers and ponds in deciduous forest. There is an extremely limited population of the salamanders in Vermilion County, Illinois with only one remaining natural population known. They are considered endangered within the state. Theory states that the population may have dropped due to the vernal pool in which they live not retaining water for a long enough period for their tadpoles to reach metamorphosis